Australian politicians slam TPP for ‘excessive secrecy’

Australian lawmakers have slammed the country’s deal-making process as one lacking transparency and oversight. They’ve particularly criticized the currently negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership for its “excessive secrecy.”

Thereport, entitled the “Blind Agreement,”
was a joint party report from the Labor, Liberal and Green
parties. They were scathing of the lengths of secrecy that those
supporting deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are
prepared to go to, in order to get the bill passed.

“It is no longer satisfactory for parliamentarians and other
stakeholders to be kept in the dark during negotiations when
Australia's trading partners, including their industry
stakeholders, have access under long-established and sensible
arrangements,” said Labor Party Senator Alex Gallacher, who
chaired the committee.

The report mentioned that confidence in negotiating free trade
agreements is “at its lowest ebb in Australia,” due to
the “excessive secrecy around TPP negotiations,” while
those who had concerns were often frowned upon and were
effectively “blindfolded” due to a lack of information.

“Parliament should play a constructive role during
negotiations and not merely rubber-stamp agreements that have
been negotiated behind closed doors,” Gallacher said.

Scott Ludlam, a Senator for the Green Party, who was also part of
the committee that drew up the report, talked about a chapter on
intellectual property rights, which only became available through
WikiLeaks. He mentions that this chapter alone has the power to
“attack internet freedoms and criminalize downloading.”

"We know from other leaks the TPP covers everything from
giving America the right to put Australian Internet users under
surveillance, to giving multinational companies the rights to sue
governments for the laws they make," Ludlam said.

Writing on his website, Ludlam cited the provisions that outline
the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), which is part of
TPP and would allow a corporation to sue a foreign national
government over legislation that has been democratically
introduced. These for example would include labor, environmental
or health protections, such as a ban on cigarette labeling.

"The tobacco company Philip Morris is currently using ISDS
clauses in an obscure Hong Kong-Australia investment agreement to
sue the Australian government for millions of dollars in
'damages' cause by our plain packaging legislation," Ludlam
said. "Our government has spent who knows how many millions
of tax dollars fighting the company in an international court for
the last four years."

The TPP, a key part of President Barack Obama's pivot to Asia,
aims to counter China's rising economic and diplomatic power by
developing a partnership in the Asia-Pacific region.

Along with the United States, 11 other countries have taken part
in TPP negotiations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan,
Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The
deal would exclude China and serve to counter its influence in
the region.

While supporters of the TPP say it will open up new markets for
American products, opponents have raised concerns over a number
of issues, including currency manipulation, environmental
protections, internet privacy, and transparency. Additionally,
they say it will harm American workers, while any benefits it may
produce will go to large corporations.

The deal has also been criticized for lack of transparency, as
the contents of the TPP has been kept in strict secrecy. Rumors
that corporate lobbyists have been drafting the substance of the
deal have been given a boost by recent leaked revelations that
corporations would be allowed to sue governments in private
courts over profits lost due to regulation.

WikiLeaks has already distributed some of the chapters regarding
the free trade agreement, however and has even set up a crowd
funding page to try and raise money as a reward for anyone who
was willing to release the rest of the documents.

However, one former Obama campaign adviser who had clearance to
access TPP drafts, wrote that disclosing anything from the
documents would be a criminal offense.

“The government has created a perfect Catch 22: The law
prohibits us from talking about the specifics of what we’ve seen,
allowing the president to criticize us for not being
specific,” Michael Wessel wrote in Politico.

“Instead of simply admitting that he disagrees with me— and
with many other cleared advisors— about the merits of the TPP,
the president instead pretends that our specific, pointed
criticisms don’t exist.”